Some facts for the Obama haters

dignin said:

BS44325 said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

jeffbr said:

Go Beavers said:

lukin2006 said:

Smellyman said:

lukin2006 said:

PJ_Soul said:

lukin2006 said:

JC29856 said:

What will be Obama's lasting legacy?

Obamacare

Yes, that too, assuming it or whatever it eventually morphs into works okay in the long run. That's a big IF considering the players going forward. But his efforts were gallant, anyway.

I doubt they'll ever have universal health care, too many special interest from the insurance will surely prevent this...

I have an American cousin who has said obamacare is a joke, and he's no republican...

Holy smokes! that is pretty damning.

Well thats my own personal experience, thats all i was commenting on...and my obamacare legacy comment was it'll either be viewed as good or bad....i didn't need for it mean more than that, so take a long walk....

Using your own personal experience or a few other anecdotal stories to determine if ACA is a good thing or not is pretty much an argument fail.

But using reports and analysis of fleeing insurers, rapidly rising costs, etc... is pretty damning. And having Bill Clinton calling it "crazy" while Obama is campaigning for Hillary's election is telling as well. It is something that the Clintons want to distance themselves from. If it were a success, the Clintons would be embracing it and talking about how it could be extended. Instead they're talking about needing reforms. I know it is hard for partisans to accept, but ACA is a failure, and no matter whom is elected president, it will be unrecognizable in a few years. This isn't the legacy Obama was hoping for.

You have to be careful that you want it to be a failure, so you're looking for confirmation of that. Anything about accessing ACA needs to include history prior to it. Rising costs are nothing new, and the free market has no incentive to reduce costs. My perspective is that health insurance in the US has sucked for a long time, and ACA was an attempt at trying to make things better. Some of it has made things better, but it's like adding yummy condiments to a shit sandwich. I see ACA as a step to a single payer system, so it's movement in the right direction.

Hundred percent agree with your first sentence, and the inverse as well (as some people are unwilling to concede that this isn't the panacea that the Obama Administration paints it as). Rising costs are nothing new, but lack of choice certainly is, and the rate of the rising premiums is new. Also, most plans have changed dramatically in the past few years, and more closely resemble what used to be considered catastrophic coverage, with high deductibles. The difference is that catastrophic coverage usually came with a lower premium. Now we're paying more for much less coverage.

I'm definitely for changing things up. I don't like that health insurance has somehow historically been tied to employers. I don't like that some can't afford medical coverage. I don't like that many people, both with and without insurance, can't get proper health care without bankrupting themselves. So I'm willing to entertain the notion of a single payer solution. The money we currently pay toward premiums with our health insurance providers could go toward this with little to no negative financial impact to individuals. My only concern is the ineptness of bureaucracies in D.C. They couldn't even successfully launch a website for the ACA and had to call in private sector industry experts to bail them out. So whatever solution is floated next, I hope that the president does proper due diligence and doesn't hire the usual inept Washington D.C. insiders to try to make it happen. There is a lot of intellectual inbreeding inside the beltway, and they seem to drink each others' Kool Aid.

Edit: And I also wanted to address your initial false premise that I wanted it to be a failure. I didn't. My now wife had no insurance when I met her, and only through the ACA was she able to afford insurance. So I was happy for Obamacare and the opportunity she had to get insurance. Unfortunately, once I married her, we both were screwed. My costs went up since my employer doesn't cover her premiums, but she no longer qualified for her subsidies because of our household income. It sucked that we had to have a conversation about whether or not we should even get married, with healthcare costs (under the ACA) being the big argument against getting married.

You need a president and congress that are willing to repeal and replace with a more market based approach. Clinton will move you towards single payer which north of the border results in reduced access, increased wait times, and a hole blown through every provincial budget. If you think Obamacare is bad wait until Clintoncare takes hold.

Yeah, we sure hate our universal healthcare up here....

Poll: Canadians are most proud of universal medicare

The online survey of 2,207 respondents by Leger Marketing found universal health care was almost universally loved, with 94 per cent calling it an important source of collective pride -- including 74 per cent who called it "very important."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/poll-canadians-are-most-proud-of-universal-medicare-1.1052929

rgambs said:

Smellyman said:

wait times over bankruptcy. It would be hard to choose one over the other.

Yeah, we all know how Canadians stream across the border for our healthcare lol

BS44325 said:

And never mind Canada...

If anybody wants to have an idea what single payer will look like should Obamacare head that way then just take a look at the VA system. That will be your future.

BS44325 said:

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

And never mind Canada...

If anybody wants to have an idea what single payer will look like should Obamacare head that way then just take a look at the VA system. That will be your future.

That's fear mongering. I don't understand why the party of common sense can't get behind health insurance models laid out by pretty much every other modernized Western country.

Is it fear mongering or fact mongering? If the government can't get the VA system right how can they possibly take that model national? The UK has problems, Canada has problems, you all have a romantic view of what universal health care is but in practice it is simply not sustainable at a quality level that patients demand and deserve.

BS44325 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Wait times in canada don't effect any illness that can cause permanent risks to your health. Yes, sometimes you have to wait a little longer for knee surgery than in the US, but you wont go poor because of it. Heart trouble? Lung issues? Cancer? You get immediate treatment. Not sure why this is such a big deal to tour average american. My daughter has ulcerative colitis, and her care is covered 100% (its $5,000 every 6 weeks for her infusions, and hundreds more for her daily meds). I cant imagine dealing with that in the US. Yeah, universal health care is so fucking evil.

Simply not true. There are many who go without immediate treatment. This happened in one of your glorious Winnipeg hospitals.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/health/death-after-34-hour-er-wait-was-preventable-judge-1.2144671

And don't get me started on cancer

BS44325 said:

Smellyman said:

BS might be a republican a bot. Singing the praises of US republican policy, while supposedly living in Canada and lamenting Canada's general awfulness. Very strange.

Can't be real. Can it?

I love my country and think I live in the best city in the world but those who are claiming universal health care is effective and affordable are simply lying. My provincial government is in horrific debt and health care is eating up more of the budget every year. The government is trying to reduce payments to doctors to make up for the budget problems but Ontario doctors have just rejected the latest contract deal and people are kidding themselves if they think this is going to be resolved favourbly. Universal health care is too expensive and what can't go on forever won't. It is simple math that the average Canadian citizen has removed themselves from as they have barely any understanding of what the true costs are. Now in terms of access if you live in a big city then you have pretty decent access to healthcare but as you move to rural areas that access decreases drastically and wait times for basic procedures and visits to specialists rises. I have a father who passed from lung cancer and a mother who is currently waiting for a knee surgery and I have worked in hospitals in Toronto myself so I am very familiar with the in's and out's of the system. I understand that people have pride in the system as people aren't "left behind" but having pride and recognizing how ineffective and unaffordable it is are two very separate things. This system was not built for the life expectancy we currently have, for the thousands of diseases that we are now able to treat, or for the unbelievable technologies we have developed. The country is coming to terms with the fact that market based reforms are needed otherwise the system will no longer be sustainable. Nobody can run from math.

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

Smellyman said:

wait times over bankruptcy. It would be hard to choose one over the other.

Yeah, we all know how Canadians stream across the border for our healthcare lol

They do. Less wait times and access to both drugs and technologies that might not be available here.

I don't know one person in my 42 years that have gone south for any type of treatment whatsoever. NOT ONE.

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

Smellyman said:

wait times over bankruptcy. It would be hard to choose one over the other.

Yeah, we all know how Canadians stream across the border for our healthcare lol

They do. Less wait times and access to both drugs and technologies that might not be available here.

I don't know one person in my 42 years that have gone south for any type of treatment whatsoever. NOT ONE.

I know quite a few.

what kind? lifesaving? or maintenance surgery? and was it because they might die waiting, or was it simply because they could afford to do it?